Political Perspective
By: GWEN LISTERTHERE'S no problem in my view, with taking up cudgels against Western media for consistently portraying Africa in a negative light.
But for African governments to pour millions into media to 'help
counter these negative and degrading perspectives' is not the
answer to the problem.
In fact, it's only going to exacerbate things when money which
should be spent on the upliftment of African people, is instead
wasted on media initiatives that not even Africans will take
seriously.
IN the wake of the launch of a new regional Sunday newspaper,
brought into being after agreement between the Namibian and
Zimbabwean Governments respectively, comes the news of the latest
folly with the same two countries planning to launch a 24-hour
television news channel, again with the stated intention of
reversing the negative image of Africa.
According to the two governments "it will tell the African story
in its proper context from an African perspective and by Africans
to help counter the negative and degrading perspectives currently
being projected by the dominant Western and Euro-centric
media".
We seem to be going backwards as far as media on this continent
is concerned.
The New Information Order, as it was euphemistically known, died
a discredited death because while this may initially have been a
genuine attempt for Africa and Africans to tell their own story, it
was exploited largely by autocratic and dictatorial African
governments to tighten their grip on the management and control of
information (and thereby their people) on the continent.
The Windhoek Declaration in 1991 provided a new way forward for
a pluralistic ownership of media, most importantly the independent
press, which had largely been in the vanguard of liberation from
colonial rule, particularly in southern Africa.
Now governments that cannot afford it, including our own and
that of Zimbabwe, are back on the bandwagon of trying to control
access to information, and this runs counter to all the positive
developments, such as democratic constitutions and bills of rights,
which have recently come into being for many countries on the
continent.
I largely agree with the assessments about Western media, their
coverage of Africa, or lack thereof, leading to largely negatively
portrayals of what's happening here, and also their difficulties in
understanding African issues.
But governments won't counter the adverse portrayals of the
continent by initiating, owning and managing their own media.
And to what purpose and at what cost? This they are not telling
us.
After all, if the Western media's portrayal of Africa is skewed,
one needs to change that image abroad.
Africans know damn well the state of their respective countries
and continent as a whole.
They are not influenced by the Western-dominated media.
So why are we churning out newspapers and expensive TV stations
for their consumption? Africa should work on a more positive image
for the continent and then perhaps Western media may change their
tune.
After all, how on earth does one portray Darfur in a positive
light.
And why would or should anyone do so? After all thousands are
dead and dying there, and it's a disgrace that should not be hidden
from human view.
Let's take the two countries initiating this media frenzy.
Namibia doesn't have a negative image abroad anyway.
It is seen in a fairly positive light, if it is seen at all,
because we've never had much space on the international news
agenda.
Zimbabwe does have a negative image abroad.
But it has a negative one at home as well and it is a rather
sorry situation, all told.
What should we do? Pretend all is well when it's not? I question
the motives behind these media initiatives.
Governments have no place in media, and it is as simple as
that.
They are supposed to govern, and do this as effectively and
transparently as possible.
Perhaps it is in this area that they should concentrate their
efforts.
In fact, it's only going to exacerbate things when money which
should be spent on the upliftment of African people, is instead
wasted on media initiatives that not even Africans will take
seriously.IN the wake of the launch of a new regional Sunday
newspaper, brought into being after agreement between the Namibian
and Zimbabwean Governments respectively, comes the news of the
latest folly with the same two countries planning to launch a
24-hour television news channel, again with the stated intention of
reversing the negative image of Africa.According to the two
governments "it will tell the African story in its proper context
from an African perspective and by Africans to help counter the
negative and degrading perspectives currently being projected by
the dominant Western and Euro-centric media".We seem to be going
backwards as far as media on this continent is concerned.The New
Information Order, as it was euphemistically known, died a
discredited death because while this may initially have been a
genuine attempt for Africa and Africans to tell their own story, it
was exploited largely by autocratic and dictatorial African
governments to tighten their grip on the management and control of
information (and thereby their people) on the continent.The
Windhoek Declaration in 1991 provided a new way forward for a
pluralistic ownership of media, most importantly the independent
press, which had largely been in the vanguard of liberation from
colonial rule, particularly in southern Africa.Now governments that
cannot afford it, including our own and that of Zimbabwe, are back
on the bandwagon of trying to control access to information, and
this runs counter to all the positive developments, such as
democratic constitutions and bills of rights, which have recently
come into being for many countries on the continent.I largely agree
with the assessments about Western media, their coverage of Africa,
or lack thereof, leading to largely negatively portrayals of what's
happening here, and also their difficulties in understanding
African issues.But governments won't counter the adverse portrayals
of the continent by initiating, owning and managing their own
media.And to what purpose and at what cost? This they are not
telling us.After all, if the Western media's portrayal of Africa is
skewed, one needs to change that image abroad.Africans know damn
well the state of their respective countries and continent as a
whole.They are not influenced by the Western-dominated media.So why
are we churning out newspapers and expensive TV stations for their
consumption? Africa should work on a more positive image for the
continent and then perhaps Western media may change their
tune.After all, how on earth does one portray Darfur in a positive
light.And why would or should anyone do so? After all thousands are
dead and dying there, and it's a disgrace that should not be hidden
from human view.Let's take the two countries initiating this media
frenzy.Namibia doesn't have a negative image abroad anyway.It is
seen in a fairly positive light, if it is seen at all, because
we've never had much space on the international news
agenda.Zimbabwe does have a negative image abroad.But it has a
negative one at home as well and it is a rather sorry situation,
all told.What should we do? Pretend all is well when it's not? I
question the motives behind these media initiatives.Governments
have no place in media, and it is as simple as that.They are
supposed to govern, and do this as effectively and transparently as
possible.Perhaps it is in this area that they should concentrate
their efforts.